DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on September 12, 2025, claims 1-4, 8, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 have been amended, and claims 9 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 10 and 24 were previously canceled. Claims 29-31 are new. Accordingly, claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-23, and 25-31 are currently pending in this application with claims 19-23 and 25-28 being previously withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on September 12, 2025, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated May 12, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Examiner notes that in the Office Action dated May 12, 2025, the restriction requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on December 13, 2022. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA 3,184,003 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear what the arrows associated with the above mentioned reference characters are meant to indicate throughout Figs. 2-12. If meant to show a sequential guide as discussed at [0077], no sequence of the arrows is presented or clear.
In Figs. 23-24, the descriptive text should be removed from the drawings and instead be added to the written description of the specification where appropriate
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference characters 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305 in Fig. 21
Reference characters 306, 307, 308, and 309 in Fig. 22
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification – Disclosure
The amendment filed September 12, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “another order of steps might be used to reach the same end embodiment” as recited at [0077] as amended. Indeed, alternative orders of steps were never disclosed in the application as originally filed. Therefore, the added material is considered new matter and should be removed from the application.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is also objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the body sling being “unitary” as recited at line 2 of claim 1
the body sling comprising rigid “integral” portions as recited at line 3 of claim 1
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because at lines 5-6, “contours of wearer’s body a body of the wearer” should read “contours of a body of the wearer”.
Claim 30 is objected to because at line 3, “the shoulder” should read “the shoulders”.
Claim 31 is objected to because at lines 1-2, “to accommodate changing contours” should read “and configured to accommodate changing contours”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of a pelvic portion, a shoulder portion, and at least one crossing of the sling each being “anatomically shaped” at lines 7, 10, and 13. It is unclear to what shape is exactly being claimed as an anatomy of a wearer varies from wearer to wearer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that each limitation instead read “configured to be anatomically shaped” similar to the language recited in claim 2. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the pelvic portion being substantially rigid” at lines 8-9. It is unclear how the “substantially rigid” pelvic portion of the body sling relates to the alternating stretchable and rigid integral portions of the body sling. Is the pelvic formed from only the rigid portions? Is the “substantially rigid” pelvic portion considered more or less rigid than the rigid portions of the body sling? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the claim be amended to clearly relate and describe the rigid portions of the body sling. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood when applying prior art wherein the pelvic portion is formed by the alternating stretchable and rigid integral portions of the body sling and is therefore at least somewhat rigid due to the presence of at least some rigid portions in combination with the alternating stretchable portions.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first area alternating with at least a second area, the first and second areas being made with material having different elastic properties” at lines 2-3. It is unclear if the first and second areas are made with the same material having different properties, or if the areas are made with respective materials having different elastic properties from one another. Furthermore, it is unclear who the first and second areas and the material relate to the previously recited alternating stretchable and rigid integral portions of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a first area defining the stretchable portions and a second area defining the rigid integral portions, the first area and the second area being made from a first material and a second material, respectively, the first material and the second material having different elastic properties from one another”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “material alternating between elastic material and semi-rigid material” at lines 1-2. It is unclear how the “semi rigid” material relates to the previously recited “rigid integral portions” of the body sling and the “substantially rigid” pelvic portion recited in claim 1. Are these materials the same rigid material or different materials of some unknown relative rigidity? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the claim be amended to clearly relate and describe the rigid portions of the body sling. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood when applying prior art as referring to the same fabric material having rigid portions previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the sling” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to refer back to the previously introduced “body sling” or some other structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body sling”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the worn sling” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to refer back to the previously introduced “body sling” or some other structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body sling when worn”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the sling” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to refer back to the previously introduced “body sling” or some other structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body sling”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the sling” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to refer back to the previously introduced “body sling” or some other structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body sling”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-8, 11-17, and 29-31 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
An effort has been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections may not be conclusive, and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 29-31, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “portions to provide consistent support to the wearer […] and to accommodate changing contours of wearer’s body a body of the wearer” at lines 3-6. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “portions configured to provide consistent support to the wearer […] and to accommodate changing contours of a body of the wearer”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a pelvic portion anatomically shaped and positioned to support a belly of the wearer and to stabilize a pelvis of the wearer” at lines 7-8. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a pelvic portion configured to be anatomically shaped and positioned to support a belly of the wearer and to stabilize a pelvis of the wearer”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a shoulder portion anatomically shaped to wrap around shoulders of the wearer to transfer at least some of the load onto the shoulders and neck of the wearer” at lines 10-12. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a shoulder portion configured to be anatomically shaped to wrap around shoulders of the wearer to transfer at least some of the load onto the shoulders and neck of the wearer”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “at least one crossing of the sling anatomically shaped and positioned on a back of the wearer to distribute some of the load onto a trunk of the wearer” at lines 13-14. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “at least one crossing of the sling configured to be anatomically shaped and positioned on a back of the wearer to distribute some of the load onto a trunk of the wearer”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “at least one curve shaped area adapting to contours of the wearer” at lines 1-2. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “at least one curve shaped area configured to adapt to contours of the wearer”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the at least one curve shaped area being located in areas of the sling which wrap around the shoulder of the wearer” at lines 1-2. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the at least one curve shaped area being located in areas of the sling that are configured to wrap around the shoulders of the wearer”.
Claims 2-8, 11-17, and 29-31 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-17, and 29-31, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 8,113,911 to Hansen et al. (hereinafter, “Hansen”) in view of US 2023/0141821 to Toso (hereinafter, “Toso”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches a body sling for supporting and distributing the load of the abdomen of a wearer, the body sling being unitary and comprising stretchable and rigid integral portions to provide consistent support to the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; body sling (80, 80’, 22) together forms a whole unit and can be formed of both elastic, i.e., stretchable, and non-elastic, i.e., rigid, material portions formed integrally together as a unit inasmuch as Applicant’s body sling; the body sling is capable of supporting and distributing a load of an abdomen of a hypothetical wearer, providing consistent support to the hypothetical wearer; Col. 4, lines 52-57; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), to ensure that the body sling maintains structural integrity during use and to accommodate changing contours of wearer's body a body of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; body sling (80, 80’, 22) is and capable of ensuring structural integrity during use to accommodate changing contours of the hypothetical wearer’s body), the body sling comprising: a pelvic portion anatomically shaped and positioned to support a belly of the wearer and to stabilize a pelvis of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; portion of body sling (80, 80’, 22) including abdominal strap portion (22) and portion of strap (80, 80’) capable of being positioned at a pelvis of a hypothetical wearer); a shoulder portion anatomically shaped to wrap around shoulders of the wearer to transfer at least some of the load onto the shoulders and neck of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; portion of body sling (80, 80’, 20) capable of wrapping around shoulders of a hypothetical wearer which is capable of transferring at least some load onto the should and neck of the hypothetical wearer); at least one crossing of the sling anatomically shaped and positioned on a back of the wearer to distribute some of the load onto a trunk of the wearer (See Hansen, Fig. 4; body sling (80, 80’, 20) is capable of crossing on and being anatomically shaped and positioned on a back of a hypothetical wearer to distribute some of a load onto a trunk of the hypothetical wearer); and a fastening mechanism adapted to vary a length of the body sling at a plurality of fastening points when worn (See Hansen, Figs. 2-3; connectors (35) at ends of body sling (80, 80’, 20) capable of varying a length of the body sling at a plurality of points when worn).
That said, although Hansen teaches that the body sling can be made of both stretchable and rigid material, Hansen is silent to the body sling being made of fabric material and comprising alternating stretchable and rigid integral portions as well as the pelvic portion being substantially rigid.
However, Toso, in a related support strap art, is directed to a back support device for supporting a back of the wearer, the device including a strap with attachable ends (See Toso, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Toso teaches the body sling being made of fabric material and comprising alternating stretchable and rigid integral portions (See Toso, Figs. 1-3; strap (110) may include elastic material and non-elastic fabric material alternating along the length of the strap from end to end; [0066], [0136]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to form the length of the body sling of Hanson from the alternating elastic and non-elastic fabric portions disclosed by Toso for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, extending the benefits of both elastic and non-elastic sections along the length of the body sling. Furthermore, as a result of the above modification, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed above) would further teach the pelvic portion being substantially rigid (alternating non-elastic, i.e., higher rigidity, portion of the modified body sling would contribute at least some rigidity to the pelvic portion as modified).
That said, although Hansen teaches the body sling having a fastening mechanism, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed above) is silent to the fastening mechanism being a fastening buckle.
However, although the fastening mechanism (35) of Hansen are snaps, Hansen further discloses a buckle fastening mechanism as an alternative to snaps in another part of the body sling of Hansen. More specifically, Hansen teaches the fastening mechanism being a fastening buckle (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; lengths of straps are adjustable via buckles which are capable of at least detachably fastening the ends of the straps; Col. 5, lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to substitute buckle fastening mechanism for the snap fastening mechanism at the ends of the modified body sling of Hansen as disclosed by Hansen, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known fastening mechanism for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one fastening mechanism performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., adjustable length fastening of the ends of the body sling.
Regarding claim 2, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches the pelvic portion configured to be anatomically shaped to fit the body of the wearer and positioned at a first position in a suprapubic or hypogastric region supporting a weight of the belly of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; pelvic portion of body sling is capable of being anatomically shaped to fit the body of a hypothetical wearer and being positioned in a hypothetical suprapubic or hypogastric region supporting the weight of the belly of the hypothetical wearer; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches configured to form two crossings on the back of the wearer (See Hansen, Fig. 4; body sling (80, 80’, 20) is capable of forming two crossings on a back of a hypothetical wearer).
Regarding claim 4, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches configured to form three crossings on the back of the wearer (See Hansen, Fig. 4; body sling (80, 80’, 20) is capable of forming three crossings on a back of a hypothetical wearer).
Regarding claim 7, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches being made with heat transferring material (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; material of body sling (80, 80’, 20) is capable of transferring heat; Col. 4, lines 52-57; Col. 6, lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 8, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches being made with a first area alternating with at least a second area, the first and second areas being made with material having different elastic properties (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; body sling (80, 80’, 22) can be formed of both elastic and non-elastic material that alternates as discussed in the modification above).
Regarding claim 11, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches being made with material alternating between elastic material and semi-rigid material (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; body sling (80, 80’, 22) can be formed of both elastic and non-elastic material that alternates as discussed in the modification above; the non-elastic material is considered at least semi-rigid).
Regarding claim 12, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein a material of the body sling has higher rigidity in the pelvic portion (alternating non-elastic, i.e., higher rigidity, portion of the modified body sling would contribute at least some rigidity to the pelvic portion as modified).
Regarding claim 13, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein a material of the sling is more supple in portions of the body sling to be worn on the axillary region of the wearer than other portions of the body sling (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; more supple or flexible elastic material portions of body sling (80, 80’, 20) is capable of being positioned in axillary region of a hypothetical wearer; elastic material portions are more supple or flexible than non-elastic material portions).
Regarding claim 14, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches the fastening buckle comprising a detachable buckle allowing adjustment of the length of the worn sling (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; lengths of straps are adjustable via buckles which are capable of at least detachably fastening the ends of the straps; Col. 5, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 15, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 14 above) further teaches the detachable buckle comprising multiple tension settings (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; lengths of body sling is adjustable via buckles, the adjustable length of the body sling corresponding to different tension settings of the body sling on a hypothetical wearer when worn; Col. 5, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 16, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches multiple shoulder portions configured to adjust a distribution of the load (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; body sling (80, 80’, 20) includes a portion capable of being positioned of each shoulder of a hypothetical wearer and are each capable of adjusting a hypothetical load distribution).
Regarding claim 17, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches being adaptable to a weight of the abdomen being increased by a growing fetus, wherein the wearer is a pregnant woman (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; modified body sling of Hansen is capable of adapting to a weight of a hypothetical pregnant woman wearer’s abdomen being increased by a hypothetical growing fetus).
Regarding claim 29, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches at least one curve shaped area adapting to contours of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; modified body sling of Hansen is capable of curving and adapting to hypothetical contours of a hypothetical wearer when worn).
Regarding claim 30, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 29 above) further teaches the at least one curve shaped area being located in areas of the sling which wrap around the shoulder of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; modified body sling of Hansen is capable of curving and being located in areas which wrap around hypothetical shoulders of a hypothetical wearer when worn).
Regarding claim 31, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches a width varying along the length of the sling to accommodate changing contours of a body of the wearer (See Hansen, Figs. 1-4; width of modified body sling of Hansen varies along the length of the body sling and is capable of accommodating hypothetical changing contours of a hypothetical wearer when worn).
Claims 5-6, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Toso, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0100293 to Kaylin (hereinafter, “Kaylin”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to being made of 3D knitted fabric.
However, Kaylin, in a related support garment art, is directed to an upper body support garment capable of delivering compression to the torso, i.e., chest and breasts, of a wearer (See Kaylin, Figs. 1-4B; abstract). More specifically, Kaylin teaches being made of 3D knitted fabric (See Kaylin, Figs. 1-4B; garment can be made of 3D knitted fabric; [0043]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to form at least a portion of the modified body sling of Hansen from the 3D knitted fabric disclosed by Kaylin in order to form the modified body sling from a material construction that is comfortable, breathable, and that allows for moisture wicking (See Kaylin, [0043]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to being made with moisture wicking and breathable material.
However, Kaylin, in a related support garment art, is directed to an upper body support garment capable of delivering compression to the torso, i.e., chest and breasts, of a wearer (See Kaylin, Figs. 1-4B; abstract). More specifically, Kaylin teaches being made with moisture wicking and breathable material (See Kaylin, Figs. 1-4B; garment can be made of 3D knitted fabric that is moisture wicking and breathable; [0043]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to form at least a portion of the modified body sling of Hansen from the 3D knitted fabric disclosed by Kaylin in order to form the modified body sling from a material construction that is comfortable, breathable, and that allows for moisture wicking (See Kaylin, [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 recite claim language not presented in the amendments to the claims. In particular, Applicant refers to claim amendments in claim 1 that were not made in the claims as presented. See rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 above in the current grounds of rejection for additional discussion.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hansen and/or Toso do not teach a unitary sling comprising alternating integral portions, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, the alternating elastic and non-elastic portions of the modified body sling of Hansen (i.e., Hansen in view of Toso, as discussed above) forms a whole unit formed integrally together inasmuch as Applicant’s body sling according to Applicant’s own provided dictionary definitions. Indeed, the modified body sling of Hansen (80, 80’, 22) has the character of a unit (i.e., unitary) and is formed by the parts of the elastic and non-elastic portions (i.e., integral). In addition, Examiner notes that both terms “unitary” and “integral” are broad. In particular, Examiner notes that the adjective term "integral" is very broad and has a definition of "[e]ssential or necessary for completeness; constituent" (Adjective Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Therefore, the modified body sling of Hansen as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above meet the limitations of being “unitary” and “integral” as put forth by Applicant.
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that Toso uses buckle elements (140) to connect elastic material (111) to non-elastic flap (122) and therefore does not teach a unitary piece, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s description of Toso, Figs. 1-2 of Toso explicitly show a non-elastic portion (122) attached directly and integrally to an elastic portion (111) as a unitary piece. Furthermore, Toso discloses alternating elastic and non-elastic material along the length of the strap as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above (See Toso, [0066]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hansen in view of Toso does not teach a unitary sling having different integral portions made of alternating stretchable and rigid fabric and having a pelvic portion being substantially rigid, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, Toso teaches alternating elastic and non-elastic portions of material along a length of a body sling. The modification of Hansen with Toso, as discussed above, results in alternating elastic and non-elastic portions along the length of the body sling of Hansen which would contribute at least some rigidity to the pelvic portion of the modified body sling rendering the pelvic portion “substantially rigid” as best can be understood. See rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion regarding the limitation of the pelvic portion being “substantially rigid”.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the material properties and structure required for compression in Kaylin are fundamentally different from those required for load bearing support and that a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to look to the art of compression garments like Kaylin for material selection, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Kaylin in directed to a supportive garment which is capable of providing load bearing support through support of a wearer’s body, in particular the wearer’s breasts. Furthermore, Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to form at least a portion of the modified body sling of Hansen from the 3D knitted fabric disclosed by Kaylin in order to form the modified body sling from a material construction that is comfortable, breathable, and that allows for moisture wicking (See Kaylin, [0043]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732